Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Government and culture change

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 1:29:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
How much of a role do you believe the government should have in culture change if any at all? Culture change is often just a natural evolutionary transition but that is usually only on the more minor scale. Significant changes don't occur easily by themselves. Grassroots, government intervention and natural evolution are the primary causes I can think of. Grassroots is great and possibly the best option but only if it works and on a significant scale. Government intervention limits freedom, sometimes causes more harm but can still be the most effective. Cultural evolution is like going with the flock without anyone leading it. It just goes on its own natural course for better or worse. I think it's necessary for the government to be involved at times as sometimes that is the most effective way for it changing for the better. Government intervention also has the ability to effect everyone in the country effectively.

Government interventionism can be crude I realize and I do hold some libertarian sympathies. Just looking for discussion.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 5:50:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't like government intervention, but this is one area in which my beliefs really are challenged because the government has done a lot to alter culture for the benefit of oppressed people :/
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 5:55:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would deny that government is, in fact, any identifiable entity.

As for culture, I just prefer whatever is least boring. I don't really care how it gets that way.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 6:15:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/26/2012 1:29:35 AM, phantom wrote:
How much of a role do you believe the government should have in culture change if any at all? Culture change is often just a natural evolutionary transition but that is usually only on the more minor scale. Significant changes don't occur easily by themselves. Grassroots, government intervention and natural evolution are the primary causes I can think of. Grassroots is great and possibly the best option but only if it works and on a significant scale. Government intervention limits freedom, sometimes causes more harm but can still be the most effective. Cultural evolution is like going with the flock without anyone leading it. It just goes on its own natural course for better or worse. I think it's necessary for the government to be involved at times as sometimes that is the most effective way for it changing for the better. Government intervention also has the ability to effect everyone in the country effectively.

Government interventionism can be crude I realize and I do hold some libertarian sympathies. Just looking for discussion.

Cultural change is something that happens on its own, with which government struggles to keep up. It probably happens in response to the government as much as it happens despite it. For example, the cultural change that led to people relying so much on drugs to make them feel copacetic stems from the government to a great degree. However, the popularization of certain recreational drugs occurs despite the government, which then struggles to keep up with such trends to maintain influence and control.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 9:52:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/26/2012 9:50:46 AM, badger wrote:
http://www.shamoozal.com...

Page not found, but maybe that's a good thing since the URL is dick.jpg.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 10:30:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The government does play a role in helping to shape/influence culture. Consider segregation. When it became illegal, 1) blacks and whites being forced to interact, and 2) having public authorities such as schools educate on the ignorance or intolerance of racism both contributed to the decline in racist ideals. I think it's complete hogwash that a "free market" would somehow rectify social injustices. Did Chic-Fil-A go out of business after their CEOs homophobia came to light? No, and in fact similar minded people specifically ate there to show their support after boycotts were suggested. I think the best way to answer this therefore is that governments should be small enough to govern over people from similar cultures or with shared values.
President of DDO
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 10:45:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/26/2012 10:30:23 AM, Danielle wrote:
The government does play a role in helping to shape/influence culture. Consider segregation. When it became illegal, 1) blacks and whites being forced to interact, and 2) having public authorities such as schools educate on the ignorance or intolerance of racism both contributed to the decline in racist ideals.

I give credit to Martin Luther King for changing mass opinion and then government followed suit and instituted a law to make sure no shred of the past idea of racism no longer existed, except it didn't even work.

I think MLK did more to end racism then legislation and mandates.

I think it's complete hogwash that a "free market" would somehow rectify social injustices. Did Chic-Fil-A go out of business after their CEOs homophobia came to light? No, and in fact similar minded people specifically ate there to show their support after boycotts were suggested. I think the best way to answer this therefore is that governments should be small enough to govern over people from similar cultures or with shared values.

He never said "all gays are bad." You really think that Chic-Fil-A should be punished by consumers because of the owners opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman? It's not like he segregated his restaurant to "gays" and "non-gays."

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 11:09:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/26/2012 10:45:54 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I give credit to Martin Luther King for changing mass opinion and then government followed suit and instituted a law to make sure no shred of the past idea of racism no longer existed, except it didn't even work.

I think MLK did more to end racism then legislation and mandates.

The government forced inclusion. Racism is based on fear. When you are forced to interact with a particular group, chances are fear that is unwarranted will be subsided. I never said that government mandates were the RIGHT thing to do. I simply acknowledged the repercussions. Think whatever you want.

I think it's complete hogwash that a "free market" would somehow rectify social injustices. Did Chic-Fil-A go out of business after their CEOs homophobia came to light? No, and in fact similar minded people specifically ate there to show their support after boycotts were suggested. I think the best way to answer this therefore is that governments should be small enough to govern over people from similar cultures or with shared values.

He never said "all gays are bad."

I never said he did. I said he was homophobic and he is. Nice straw man.

You really think that Chic-Fil-A should be punished by consumers because of the owners opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman? It's not like he segregated his restaurant to "gays" and "non-gays."

Either you're a huge hypocrite, or you're so hell bent on arguing that you are willing to be completely inconsistent just for the sake of a good argument. On one hand you argue that government is bad; it shouldn't legislate morality and rely on the free market as an expression of social values - and that's fine. That means of course that people would use boycotts as a means of expression to either support or disagree with a particular cause. Do I think Chic-Fil-A should be punished because of the CEOs views? First of all, I never said that, and second of all, I think consumers have every right in the world to choose not to eat at Chic-Fil-A if it will inhibit the profitability of the CEO, and therefore the amount of money he can contribute to anti-gay political lobbying and campaigns if they disagree with those ideals. Yes I do believe that.
President of DDO
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 8:01:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/26/2012 10:30:23 AM, Danielle wrote:
I think it's complete hogwash that a "free market" would somehow rectify social injustices. Did Chic-Fil-A go out of business after their CEOs homophobia came to light? No, and in fact similar minded people specifically ate there to show their support after boycotts were suggested. I think the best way to answer this therefore is that governments should be small enough to govern over people from similar cultures or with shared values.

That's a very interesting suggestion -- so, you believe that cultures should be exclusive and isolated within their own states, with private, sovereign governments?

I definitely disagree with that. I consider the richness of this country's diverse culture, for example, very valuable. The worldview that we can garner, and the education that is accessible through outlets from all over the world, is likely unparalleled. I mean, it obviously isn't like going to the source, but the diversity in knowledge and experience that one can encounter in the states is probably rather unique.

I really don't know for sure... but, in my experience, it is definitely part of the richness of this country. Of course, it's not to mention that every advance that has come from American inventors were a collaboration with several Americans that were only first or second generation natives. From the car to the internet, the United States has been shaping the world for a while, and I'm sure that the fact that there's no real cultural distinction about being an American aside a quaint "Americaness" that we can hardly detect ourselves, but which is apparently blaringly obvious to everyone else, that contributes to this fact.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 8:47:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love this topic and frequently reflect on it. Here are some thoughts:

If the state-corporation wanted to engineer social change that was widely unpopular with the American people, they'd have to resort to big time lying, massive tyranny (spying, stealing on large scales, etc), and probably some forms of totalitarianism. Refer to how the Bush administration created and sold the War on Terror with great success at first. Now, of course, there is the question of how we know the government agenda is indeed superior to the agenda of the common people. I'm a bit of a cultural relativist when it comes to anthropology. So if the government says "here is social change X; we are going to institute it now via programs Y and Z" I'd be immensely skeptical as to the state-corporate (or as you may know it, "government" and/or "big business") motives.

The biggest fallacy when it comes to our government today is that it is for the people by the people, and that the government must have consent of the governed. This is false - representing the common people hasn't been a concern of the federal government for a long time. The government is owned by corporations, lobbyists, politicians, etc for the most part just looking for power, social status, and wealth. The government is as pro big business as they come, to the detriment of 99% of the population. So if the government is going to push for large scale social change that wouldn't have just happened naturally, we've got to ask: Why is this happening? Why are they interested in furthering this goal? What do the players involved have to gain from it, politically, financially, etc.?

Wise leaders do not push for policies that will be overwhelmingly unpopular, most of the time, because unless the leader is an open dictator there will probably be negative expression from the people and this may threaten the leader's political life. In the American political systems, however, state and federal elections are designed to focus on relatively trivial issues, keeping the important ones off the table. What they want most of all is an uneducated electorate that will make irrational choices. Why? Because the American political spectrum, when it comes to both political parties, is wayyyy off from the spectrum of the average American voters. Typically both parties are well to the right of the population. This is why Mitt Romney inadvertently screwed himself over by campaigning as severely conservative during the primaries and then being forced to resume his Moderate Mitt schtick during the general elections. Politicians like this are merely sociopathic actors, or liars, depending on how you want to portray them.

However, I'm skeptical that in our society, big social change could occur without that "natural evolution" process playing a key role. Think about it. The slaves were technically freed in the mid 1800s. It wasn't till 100 years later that blacks were really free. Powerful, racist, Southern whites worked around the law for decades, finding loopholes, basically retaining "slavery in name only". There were violent conservative reactions like the KKK. This started dying out only in the 50s and 60s when the time was ripe for the ideas of black and white equality to flourish. I've heard the 70s were a pretty angry time from the father of a friend of mine who is a wealthy white businessman. Maybe that's just his point of view from dwelling in rich white businessman social circles. Point is, almost all the time, if the time is ripe for an idea to flourish in a given society, someone, be it an artist or a businessman or a politician, will go out and take advantage of it. They will exploit it. However, rarely do they try to push an idea for which they wouldn't be able to convince a large portion of the voting public to get on board and support - even if they must resort to tyranny/propaganda in order to garner that support.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 9:18:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/26/2012 9:50:46 AM, badger wrote:
http://www.shamoozal.com...

I got a page not found along with a Norton notification that it had blocked a malicious viral attack.

Thanks badg.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater